MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117352458 · doi:10.1109/csee.2002.995194

Learner-centered software engineering education: from resources to skills and pedagogical patterns

2003· article· en· W2117352458 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Seffah, Peter Grogono

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrainingCurriculumBachelorContext (archaeology)Computer scienceSoftware engineeringEngineering managementCDIOEngineering educationEngineeringPedagogyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A revolution is taking place in academic and continuing education, one that deals with the philosophy of how we teach and learn, the relationship between educators and learners, the way in which the classroom is structured, and the nature of the curriculum. This new approach, termed learner-centered education, is focused on the needs, skills and interests of the learner rather than on the organization of curriculum content. This paper describes an approach for identifying critical skills and for designing training material for learner-centered software engineering education. The approach starts from an analysis of the software developer's context of work, identifies critical skills and then associates relevant learning resources with them. The approach has been successfully used and validated in a real world-training program called PRISE that the first author developed-Programme de Reorientation des Ingenieurs Sans Emploi, a Curriculum for Retraining Unemployed Engineers in Software Engineering. The approach is also being used in some courses in the Concordia bachelor of software engineering program.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.011
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicModel-Driven Software Engineering TechniquesFrench-language works237,207